aiqbench analysis
This research investigates the geometric constraints of decision-focused learning (DFL), specifically analyzing how rank-one Jacobians limit independent parameter update directions and impact optimization trajectories. The study demonstrates that while DFL offers theoretical advantages in specific decision problems, empirical gains over standard MSE losses are often marginal unless architectural scaling is carefully compensated for. These findings provide critical insights into the relationship between predictor geometry and actual decision quality in machine learning systems.
Jacobian Rank Collapse in Decision-Focused Learning
arXiv:2609.39261v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Decision-focused learning (DFL) trains predictors through downstream objectives, but a different loss need not provide an independent parameter-update direction. We characterize this restriction through the predictor Jacobian, using sparse index tracking to distinguish the covariance entries read by the optimizer from the parameter directions available to learning. Rank-one Jacobians make nonzero per-example gradients collinear; a conditional spectral bound describes near-collinearity. A batch-subspace characterization and counterexamples show why these local statements imply neither common minimizers nor collinear batch updates. Experiments examine when geometry translates into decision quality. Across 38 one-parameter equity configurations, DFL gains over MSE remain below 1.8%; a 385-parameter conditional predictor also has pointwise rank one. In validation-tuned shortest-path and knapsack experiments, full-capacity SPO+ reduces mean regret by 11.6% and 10.6%, respectively; only knapsack survives correction across eight comparisons. The capacity contrast persists on fresh datasets across batch orders and training budgets. Holding expressivity fixed, invertible coordinate scaling lowers spectral effective rank and ordinary SGD gains; compensating for the scaling restores the original trajectories. Financial forward-target controls separate forecast accuracy from decision quality; a matched neural comparison finds no aggregate DFL advantage in the tested architecture. These findings distinguish local rank restrictions, coordinate-dependent optimization and predictive accuracy. Predictor geometry helps explain available learning directions, while held-out decision quality remains the test of practical benefit.
Abstract:Decision-focused learning (DFL) trains predictors through downstream objectives, but a different loss need not provide an independent parameter-update direction. We characterize this restriction through the predictor Jacobian, using sparse index tracking to distinguish the covariance entries read by the optimizer from the parameter directions available to learning. Rank-one Jacobians make nonzero per-example gradients collinear; a conditional spectral bound describes near-collinearity. A batch-subspace characterization and counterexamples show why these local statements imply neither common minimizers nor collinear batch updates. Experiments examine when geometry translates into decision quality. Across 38 one-parameter equity configurations, DFL gains over MSE remain below 1.8%; a 385-parameter conditional predictor also has pointwise rank one. In validation-tuned shortest-path and knapsack experiments, full-capacity SPO+ reduces mean regret by 11.6% and 10.6%, respectively; only knapsack survives correction across eight comparisons. The capacity contrast persists on fresh datasets across batch orders and training budgets. Holding expressivity fixed, invertible coordinate scaling lowers spectral effective rank and ordinary SGD gains; compensating for the scaling restores the original trajectories. Financial forward-target controls separate forecast accuracy from decision quality; a matched neural comparison finds no aggregate DFL advantage in the tested architecture. These findings distinguish local rank restrictions, coordinate-dependent optimization and predictive accuracy. Predictor geometry helps explain available learning directions, while held-out decision quality remains the test of practical benefit.
53 pages, 21 figures, 32 tables. Includes theoretical proofs and supplementary experiments
Machine Learning (cs.LG); Portfolio Management (q-fin.PM)
arXiv:2609.39261 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2609.39261v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.39261 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 324 words
Related coverage
J++ Lens: Jacobian Filtering Enables More Faithful Workspace Lenses
LessWrong · Oct 8, 2026
The Entangled Dimensions of Decision Theory
LessWrong · Jul 30, 2026
Handling Imbalanced Classification: What Works Better Than SMOTE
Analytics Vidhya · Jul 12, 2026
Game Design Creativity evals
LessWrong · Oct 12, 2026